Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

Batiyka Makhno was the greatest internet troll to ever live, a true Ukrainian in heart...

Oh, Nestor Makhno? I dunno, haven't heard of him much.

He created the Free Territory along with the rest of the Black Army in modern day south-eastern Ukraine, roughly corresponding with the area of the pro-Russian rebels today. He was an interesting fellow.

Heh. I was an anarchist when I was a teenager   Funny times

But now I see Nestor Makhno as a dreamer, military genius and very naive politican who was used by Bolsheviks to destroy first Ukrainian attempt of independence. If all pro-Ukrainian groups were actually united back then...

Ukrainians are anarchists in heart, that is our strength and our weakness. That is not a coincidence that Kropotkin and Makhno were Ukrainians

I think Makhno came closer to achieving true Communism in three years than any Soviet managed in the 69 years of that union's lifespan. That's a very interesting concept, though. I take it Ukrainian inclination towards anarchism lies in your history as a nation of Cossacks?

[BlindKitty]

Well, a few days ago I could have uploaded photos geotagged in Germany at about 11 am, and geotagged in Tokyo at about 1 pm. How is this possible, you ask? Have I mastered the teleportation technology? No, in fact, a device will geotag the photo with whatever information you feed it, which might come from GPS chip, or a from a program generating fake date for some reason. Like, if you want to make a stupid joke to your friend and send him photo geotagged at Bangladesh of his house, or something.

Now, why would a Russian soldier falsely geotag a photo to say that he was in the war-torn Eastern Ukraine? That's another question. But as an evidence, the geotag on photo is about as reliable as your friendly neighbourhood schizophrenic on LSD.

[burningpet]

Oh. So good thing we already know they're there? I also enjoy how the geotagging that says he's in russia is reliable.

That's just non biased journalism. neither that article nor i tried to side with russia or claim they never crossed the border. just explain how this specific geotagging instance is simply not sufficient for a proof.

[scrdest]

Heh. I was an anarchist when I was a teenager   Funny times

But now I see Nestor Makhno as a dreamer, military genius and very naive politican who was used by Bolsheviks to destroy first Ukrainian attempt of independence. If all pro-Ukrainian groups were actually united back then...

Ukrainians are anarchists in heart, that is our strength and our weakness. That is not a coincidence that Kropotkin and Makhno were Ukrainians

I think Makhno came closer to achieving true Communism in three years than any Soviet managed in the 69 years of that union's lifespan. That's a very interesting concept, though. I take it Ukrainian inclination towards anarchism lies in your history as a nation of Cossacks?

Eh. Every single project claimed to come close to 'true Communism' happens to be either apocryphal, or very short-lived, it seems.

[Owlbread]

Eh. Every single project claimed to come close to 'true Communism' happens to be either apocryphal, or very short-lived, it seems.

My theory is that that's because true Communism is basically anarchy, something that every super power in the world would move to destroy if it ever started gaining traction. Look at what happened to the anarchist revolutionaries in Spain. The Black Army in Ukraine were destroyed by Reds and Whites alike, which shows just how much the Communist revolution even then had been hijacked by the forces of authoritarianism and the new elites. Disregard Trotsky's nonsense about Stalin hijacking things, it was screwed even back then and Trotsky was at the helm of all that. If they were the Communist revolutionaries they claimed to be they would have preserved the Free Territory and used it as an example of what every community in Russia should work towards.

[scrdest]

Eh. Every single project claimed to come close to 'true Communism' happens to be either apocryphal, or very short-lived, it seems.

My theory is that that's because true Communism is basically anarchy, something that every super power in the world would move to destroy if it ever started gaining traction. Look at what happened to the anarchist revolutionaries in Spain.

...they were beaten by an army of other Spanish soldiers (and foreign volunteers) that were backers of other ideologies. With the aid of *other* foreign volunteers. Basically an early form of a proxy war. What is your point?

[Owlbread]

...they were beaten by an army of other Spanish soldiers (and foreign volunteers) that were backers of other ideologies. With the aid of *other* foreign volunteers. Basically an early form of a proxy war. What is your point?

My point is that every super power in the world at that time - Britain, Nazi Germany, France, USSR etc - along with the Republicans and Fascists worked to crush them. They were too much of a threat and a proxy war was waged against them, as you say. I can't remember whether Britain actually sent ships to blockade Barcelona or if that was just a plan in case the anarchists got too powerful. I certainly remember hearing that we were far more likely to intervene against the anarchists than we were to intervene on the side of the Republicans against the Fascists. Pretty much the same thing happened in Ukraine when you consider who was backing the White Army.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I take it Ukrainian inclination towards anarchism lies in your history as a nation of Cossacks?

Partly. Live on a frontier tends to create "Who needs the useless government?" mentality, but can't say that Western Ukrainians have no same spark in them.

[scrdest]

...they were beaten by an army of other Spanish soldiers (and foreign volunteers) that were backers of other ideologies. With the aid of *other* foreign volunteers. Basically an early form of a proxy war. What is your point?

My point is that every super power in the world at that time - Britain, Nazi Germany, France, USSR etc - along with the Republicans and Fascists worked to crush them. They were too much of a threat and a proxy war was waged against them, as you say. I can't remember whether Britain actually sent ships to blockade Barcelona or if that was just a plan in case the anarchists got too powerful. I certainly remember hearing that we were far more likely to intervene against the anarchists than we were to intervene on the side of the Republicans against the Fascists. Pretty much the same thing happened in Ukraine when you consider who was backing the White Army.

Uh. No. USSR sent arms - they in fact made quite a big deal of surreptitiously smuggling weapons to Republicans. Yes, they had their own favorites and there were struggles among the various Republican organizations, but nonetheless they were anything but working to crush them.

Both France and Britain did not help much, yes, but they had quite different motivations - Brits' stance as the time was to panic at the slightest mention of anyone fighting anything after WWI, while the French were afraid that if they do help, they might alienate their own right-wingers and end up with a civil war of their own, and again, postwar pacifism and German appeasement.

Germany and Italy were of course on the side of Francoists, but that's a given.

And the Free Territory was crushed by the USSR, not the Whites.

[Owlbread]

Uh. No. USSR sent arms - they in fact made quite a big deal of surreptitiously smuggling weapons to Republicans. Yes, they had their own favorites and there were struggles among the various Republican organizations, but nonetheless they were anything but working to crush them.

You don't seem to understand the difference between the Anarchists in Catalonia and the Republican forces which included even fairly far left groups like POUM.

Both France and Britain did not help much, yes, but they had quite different motivations - Brits' stance as the time was to panic at the slightest mention of anyone fighting anything after WWI, while the French were afraid that if they do help, they might alienate their own right-wingers and end up with a civil war of their own, and again, postwar pacifism and German appeasement.

Germany and Italy were of course on the side of Francoists, but that's a given.

But my point was that Britain and France and countries like that seemed more happy to intervene to defeat the Anarchists than they were to intervene on the side of the Republicans.

And the Free Territory was crushed by the USSR, not the Whites.

I know, I even said that. Weren't you reading my post about how the Reds crushing the Black Army is evidence that the revolution was well and truly screwed even back then? The Black Army did fight the Whites, however, like Anton Denikin.

Partly. Live on a frontier tends to create "Who needs the useless government?" mentality, but can't say that Western Ukrainians have no same spark in them.

How do West Ukrainians differ from East Ukrainians historically? By "East Ukrainians" I'm not referring to the recent Soviet migrants but ethnic Ukrainians from further East like Makhno. Are West Ukrainians more established and less "Cossack"-like? More "Ruthenian", as it were? Or am I getting mixed up.

[Digital Hellhound]

The Republican arms shipments (USSR largely, also Mexico and some minor purchases before the world powers declared an embargo which the fascist powers gleefully ignored) went to whoever the USSR wanted, so not anarchists. We're talking about a state deeply entrenched within the Republican regime - my favorite bit is when they convince the Republicans to ship their gold reserves to the USSR for 'safekeeping', with no intention of returning them.

At least in my sources, the anarchists do a fair job screwing themselves over, too, as much as their 'allies'. I wouldn't totally attribute their fate to the hostility of governments.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

How do West Ukrainians differ from East Ukrainians historically? By "East Ukrainians" I'm not referring to the recent Soviet migrants but ethnic Ukrainians from further East like Makhno. Are West Ukrainians more established and less "Cossack"-like? More "Ruthenian", as it were? Or am I getting mixed up.

Ome difference is terrain. Eastern and Southern Ukraine = Steppes (and Cossacks lived only here even if people arrived from all Ukraine) . Western and Northern Ukraine = Forests and swamps. "far" Western = mountains. I think you understand that difference between highlanders and lowlanders is always present even inside one nation.

Being divided between different countries added some variety, too. Eastern Ukraine is under Russian influence cince 1650s, Western stayed in Poland, then in Austro-Hungary

[ChairmanPoo]

Uh. No. USSR sent arms - they in fact made quite a big deal of surreptitiously smuggling weapons to Republicans. Yes, they had their own favorites and there were struggles among the various Republican organizations, but nonetheless they were anything but working to crush them.

You don't seem to understand the difference between the Anarchists in Catalonia and the Republican forces which included even fairly far left groups like POUM.

Both France and Britain did not help much, yes, but they had quite different motivations - Brits' stance as the time was to panic at the slightest mention of anyone fighting anything after WWI, while the French were afraid that if they do help, they might alienate their own right-wingers and end up with a civil war of their own, and again, postwar pacifism and German appeasement.

Germany and Italy were of course on the side of Francoists, but that's a given.

But my point was that Britain and France and countries like that seemed more happy to intervene to defeat the Anarchists than they were to intervene on the side of the Republicans.

And the Free Territory was crushed by the USSR, not the Whites.

I know, I even said that. Weren't you reading my post about how the Reds crushing the Black Army is evidence that the revolution was well and truly screwed even back then? The Black Army did fight the Whites, however, like Anton Denikin.

Partly. Live on a frontier tends to create "Who needs the useless government?" mentality, but can't say that Western Ukrainians have no same spark in them.

How do West Ukrainians differ from East Ukrainians historically? By "East Ukrainians" I'm not referring to the recent Soviet migrants but ethnic Ukrainians from further East like Makhno. Are West Ukrainians more established and less "Cossack"-like? More "Ruthenian", as it were? Or am I getting mixed up.

the POUM fought -and was crushed-  alongside the anarchists.

Also, IIRC the British goverment pressured the French into NOT helping the Spanish Republic.

which, by the way, gave the USSR aligned CPS undue power inside the Republican side, as Stalin was the only one  who was helping the Republic

[Guardian G.I.]

Ukrainian artillery shelling residential buildings in Donetsk, 07.08.2014
Aftermath of the shelling. The cameraman says it's the 8th of August, for some reason. Clearly it's the work of the bloody KGB.

[Owlbread]

Ome difference is terrain. Eastern and Southern Ukraine = Steppes (and Cossacks lived only here even if people arrived from all Ukraine) . Western and Northern Ukraine = Forests and swamps. "far" Western = mountains. I think you understand that difference between highlanders and lowlanders is always present even inside one nation.

Being divided between different countries added some variety, too. Eastern Ukraine is under Russian influence cince 1650s, Western stayed in Poland, then in Austro-Hungary

So are Ukrainians from Western and Northern Ukraine different from the Far Western Ukrainians? Are the Mountaineers the Carpatho-Ruthenians or something among whom Putin's minions were trying to develop a pro-Russian separatist movement?